The Sub-Committee is asked to determine Jaam Restaurants Limited’s application, taking into account the details in the report and any representations made at this Sub-Committee meeting.

The Chair invited all attendees to introduce themselves.

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer presented a summary of the report in relation to an application submitted by Jaam Restaurants Limited for a variation to a premises license in respect of 44-46 Cornmarket Street, Oxford.

The key matters for consideration included:

• The applicants request to extend the hours for late night refreshments from 23:00 hours to 03:00 hours daily (currently until 00:00 daily).
• The application attracted representation from three interested parties or other persons that highlighted concerns in relation to how the application may fail to promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and public safety.

Members were reminded that when considering any representations, only issues relating to the four licensing objectives could be considered and appropriate weight given to the importance and relevance of each representation. Comments made regarding the potential impact on the trade of other businesses could be considered.

The Sub-Committee were reminded of its responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act and the Human Rights Act when considering the fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the rights of local residents. Any decision taken by the Sub-Committee must be necessary and proportionate to the objectives being pursued.

The Chair thanked the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer and invited questions from the Sub-Committee.

The Chair invited questions from the Legal Advisor; there were none.

The Chair invited questions from the applicants; there were none.

The Chair invited the applicants to present their case. Mr Leo Charalambides and Ms Joanne Jones were in attendance to present the application to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Charalambides addressed the Sub-Committee and explained that the existing license before them contained conditions consistent with the operating schedule. McDonalds centrally had applied for a premises license which happened in February due to relocating an existing store. Consequently, the operating schedule submitted with the application was reviewed by the responsible authorities and agreed on, reflecting prior discussions. Mr Charalambides requested the Sub-Committee to consider this as it accurately represented the previously established terms. He stated that condition 4 on the current licence would no longer be relevant as, should the application be granted, a hard closing time of 3am would be enforced, with the last walk-in customer admitted at 2:45 am and the final delivery order placed by 2:40 am, at which point the third-party operator app would be switched off. He found it was notable that the responsible authorities were absent from the meeting, suggesting if concerns regarding crime, disorder, noise or chaos existed, their attendance would be expected. Mr Charalambides further highlighted that the city council initially opposed the planning application leading to an appeal. However, the inspector determined that concerns about noise, nuisance and disturbance lacked evidential support. The operating schedule outlined in the application included measures intended to promote licensing objectives, such as CCTV engagement, security protocols, risk assessments, staff safety and multiple training policies. Additionally, the operator conducted regular litter picks, adhered to safeguarding polices approved by the NSPCC, particularly for nighttime operations and had successfully managed temporary event notices without objections. 

The Chair thanked Mr Charalambides and invited questions from the Sub-Committee.

The Chair inquired about the litter pick process, its frequency and effectiveness. Mr Charalambides responded that each store employed a regular litter picker from sunrise to sunset, following health and safety guidelines. Litter picking was conducted multiple times daily, starting in the morning, before and after lunch, after school hours and early evening, covering all litter in the vicinity, not just from McDonalds. The store sponsored bins where possible, subject to planning approval and conducted litter picks up and down Cornmarket Street four to five times daily.

The Chair asked about litter picking frequency during late evening, particularly two to three hours before midnight. Mr Charalambides explained that during the night it was reduced and was confined to the immediate area based on risk assessment, with the following litter pick occurring the following morning.

The Chair asked if they regarded the bench in front of the premises as a responsibility of the license holder. Mr Charalambides said it was generally considered part of the license holder remit to keep it clear, with more frequent checks conducted until around 8 or 9pm, after which no staff would remain outside until morning, subject to health and safety considerations. 

The Chair noted that if the new late-night refreshment hour after 9pm were approved, litter accumulation near the premises might not be addressed promptly unless deemed safe under risk assessment protocols.  Mr Charalambides agreed, stating any action would depend on health and safety risk assessments.

Councillor Clarkson questioned the typical level of trade between midnight and 3am based on other McDonalds stores. Mr Charalambides said peak trade occurred between 2am and 2.30am, continuing steadily until 5am, although this varied significantly. Councillor Clarkson also queried staff presence beyond these hours. Mr Charalambides confirmed staff would remain onsite from 5am to 6am to prepare for opening.

Councillor Clarkson asked about objections with vehicle movements related to takeaway trade after midnight, to which Mr Charalambides responded that third-party delivery drivers were common. He mentioned the new store was designed with a separate entrance for delivery drivers, who were required to remove helmets, could use toilet facilities and eat in-store. The store maintained agreements and registration with third-party operators and had polices allowing blacklisting of drivers who caused issues.

The Chair asked what sort of behaviour would cause them to blacklist a delivery driver. Mr Charalambides listed abuse toward staff or customers, predatory behaviour, illegal activity and violence. He confirmed no such incidents had occurred at this store.

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer enquired about parking for delivery motorbikes in the pedestrian zone. Mr Charalambides explained that mostly pushbikes were used and were expected to be parked lawfully and safely. He noted the capability to geofence certain areas to prevent driver congregation.

The Chair sought clarification on the process for establishing geofencing with delivery services like Uber Eats, Deliveroo or Just Eat. Mr Charalambides stated there was a dedicated licensing officer at McDonalds Central who liaised with these companies and could escalate matters. He noted that no license reviews had ever been required.

The Chair asked Ms Jones how often they had contacted the central licensing officer to communicate with delivery services. Ms Jones responded that she maintained relationships with the operators and had not needed to intervene. 

Councillor Lygo inquired if Ms Jones had participated in litter picks or would be interested. Ms Jones said they typically conducted litter picks from March to September involving management and engaged in educational talks at schools to promote cleanliness.

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer asked about the presence of door staff. Mr Charalambides confirmed door staff were employed on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, aligning with nightclub operations.

The Chair invited summaries.

To summarise, Mr Charalambides stated there had been no direct criticism of the operating schedule. He presented McDonald’s as a responsible operator committed to upholding standards in the nighttime economy and commended the application for approval.

Mr Charalambides, Ms Jones, the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer and the Licensing Compliance Officer left the room to allow the Sub-Committee to deliberate.

The Sub-Committee deliberated in private.

Mr Charalambides, Ms Jones, the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer, and the Licensing Compliance Officer rejoined the meeting.

The Chair welcomed all attendees back to the meeting and delivered the decision of the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee resolved to:

• Grant the premises license as applied for.

In addition The Sub-Committee commented that the licensee should make every effort to reduce the amount of litter in the immediate vicinity of the premises and should maintain ongoing dialogue with third-party delivery operators to promote responsible behaviour among delivery drivers.

The Chair also reminded the applicant of their right to appeal the Sub-Committee's decision should they be dissatisfied.

Mr Charalambides and Ms Jones thanked the Sub-Committee and left the meeting.